A Morphometric Outline Analysis of Ancestry and Sex Differences in Cranial Shape

Forensic anthropological techniques that utilize nonmetric cranial traits to estimate sex and ancestry have historically been criticized for their subjectivity and qualitative nature. Nonmetric traits, however, continue to be valuable tools in identifying remains in forensic investigations. In this study, geometric morphometric analyses of cranial outlines were performed to quantitatively assess population and sex variation in modern human cranial shapes and to verify group differences in previously reported qualitative traits. Elliptical Fourier analysis was conducted on two‐dimensional images of the left lateral, posterior, and superior cranial views from 198 U.S. Black and White crania. Results reveal significant sex and population differences in cranial shape that generally coincide with traditional qualitative descriptions. Although sex classification was relatively low (70.2%), ancestry classification was higher (92.4%), indicating that outline analyses that incorporate multiple nonmetric traits into a single statistical analysis may provide a more objective and accurate means of ancestry classification.

[1]  W. Bass.  Human osteology : a laboratory and field manual of the human skeleton , 1971 .

[2]  H. Iwata,et al.  SHAPE: a computer program package for quantitative evaluation of biological shapes based on elliptic Fourier descriptors. , 2002, The Journal of heredity.

[3]  M Katherine Spradley,et al.  Sex Estimation in Forensic Anthropology: Skull Versus Postcranial Elements , 2011, Journal of forensic sciences.

[4]  Steven N. Byers,et al.  Introduction to Forensic Anthropology , 2007 .

[5]  T. Rogers,et al.  Evaluating the Accuracy and Precision of Cranial Morphological Traits for Sex Determination , 2006, Journal of forensic sciences.

[6]  W. Howells,et al.  Skull Shapes and the Map: Craniometric Analyses in the Dispersion of Modern Homo , 1992 .

[7]  M. El-Najjar,et al.  Forensic Anthropology: The Structure, Morphology, and Variation of Human Bone and Dentition , 1977 .

[8]  Ashley B. Maxwell,et al.  A Radiographic Study on the Utility of Cranial Vault Outlines for Positive Identifications , 2014, Journal of forensic sciences.

[9]  E. S.,et al.  Changes in Bodily Form of Descendants of Immigrants , 1913, Nature.

[10]  Phillip L Walker,et al.  Sexing skulls using discriminant function analysis of visually assessed traits. , 2008, American journal of physical anthropology.

[11]  Stephen D Ousley,et al.  Statistical Classification Methods for Estimating Ancestry Using Morphoscopic Traits , , 2014, Journal of forensic sciences.

[12]  L. Konigsberg,et al.  Use of ordinal categorical variables in skeletal assessment of sex from the cranium. , 1998, American journal of physical anthropology.

[13]  Carl N Stephan,et al.  Elliptical Fourier analysis: fundamentals, applications, and value for forensic anthropology , 2017, International Journal of Legal Medicine.

[14]  Natalie R. Langley,et al.  A Decision Tree for Nonmetric Sex Assessment from the Skull , 2018, Journal of forensic sciences.

[15]  T. Inoue,et al.  Sex determination by discriminant function analysis of lateral cranial form. , 1992, Forensic science international.

[16]  J. Hefner,et al.  Cranial Nonmetric Variation and Estimating Ancestry * , 2009, Journal of forensic sciences.

[17]  G. Maat,et al.  On the reliability of non‐metrical morphological sex determination of the skull compared with that of the pelvis in The Low Countries , 1997 .

[18]  K. Reichs.  Forensic osteology : advances in the identification of human remains , 1998 .

[19]  Michael W. Kenyhercz,et al.  Morphological Assessment of Ancestry using Cranial Macromorphoscopics , , 2015, Journal of forensic sciences.

[20]  G. Hauser,et al.  Reflections on interobserver differences in scoring non-metric cranial traits (with practical examples) , 1984 .

[21]  Heather M Garvin,et al.  Sexual dimorphism in skeletal browridge and chin morphologies determined using a new quantitative method. , 2012, American journal of physical anthropology.

[22]  H. Garvin,et al.  Sexual dimorphism in human cranial trait scores: effects of population, age, and body size. , 2014, American journal of physical anthropology.

[23]  R. Lazenby,et al.  Found! Human remains : a field manual for the recovery of the recent human skeleton , 1983 .

[24]  Michael W. Kenyhercz,et al.  An evaluation of nasal bone and aperture shape among three South African populations. , 2015, Forensic science international.

[25]  J. Relethford,et al.  Craniometric variation among modern human populations. , 1994, American journal of physical anthropology.

[26]  P. Becker,et al.  An evaluation of non-metric cranial traits used to estimate ancestry in a South African sample. , 2011, Forensic science international.

[27]  Sebastian K T S Wärmländer,et al.  Zygomaticomaxillary suture shape analyzed with digital morphometrics: reassessing patterns of variation in American Indian and European populations. , 2012, Forensic science international.

[28]  P E O'Shaughnessy,et al.  Introduction to forensic science. , 2001, Dental clinics of North America.

[29]  G. P. Rightmire.  Cranial measurements and discrete traits compared in distance studies of African Negro skulls. , 1972, Human biology.

[30]  Robert B. Pickering,et al.  The Use of Forensic Anthropology , 2009 .

[31]  H. Garvin,et al.  Reliability of the Walker Cranial Nonmetric Method and Implications for Sex Estimation , 2016, Journal of forensic sciences.